role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 19, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-19 (PDF)

L177 - Thu 19 May 2016 / Jeu 19 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 19 May 2016 Jeudi 19 mai 2016

Orders of the Day

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of historical costume

Visitor

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Government advertising

Government fiscal policies

Health care funding

Parental rights

Personal support workers

Consumer protection

Horse racing industry

Senior citizens

Energy policies

Legislative pages

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Perth Military Settlement

Spring bear hunt

Crimean Tatar people

109th Battalion CEF

Automotive industry

Streetsville Bread and Honey Festival

Anti-Semitism

Jewish Heritage Month

Disaster relief

Motions

Order of business

Standing Committee on Public Accounts / Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Visitors / Visiteurs

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Asian Heritage Month

Personal support workers

Asian Heritage Month

Personal support workers

Asian Heritage Month

Personal support workers

Visitors

Petitions

Health care funding

Mental health and addiction services

Transports en commun

Hospital funding

Health care funding

Child care

Health care funding

Employment standards

Hospital funding

Privatization of public assets

Autism treatment

Special-needs students

Accident in Halton Hills

Private Members’ Public Business

Standing Up Against Anti-Semitism in Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme en Ontario

Highway improvement

Safe Texting Zones Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’aménagement de haltes texto sécuritaires

Standing Up Against Anti-Semitism in Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme en Ontario

Highway improvement

Safe Texting Zones Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’aménagement de haltes texto sécuritaires

Standing Up Against Anti-Semitism in Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme en Ontario

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 18, 2016, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 and the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016 and to repeal the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 151, Loi édictant la Loi de 2016 sur la récupération des ressources et l’économie circulaire et la Loi transitoire de 2016 sur le réacheminement des déchets et abrogeant la Loi de 2002 sur le réacheminement des déchets.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue, the member from Toronto–Danforth had completed his comments. It is now time for questions and comments.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to rise and speak in response to the comments by the member from Toronto–Danforth. First of all, as I said earlier, at public hearings under the Standing Committee on Social Policy in April we heard broad support from a range of stakeholders, including producers, municipalities, service providers and environmental organizations. I would like to thank all of those stakeholders for their input.

I would also like to thank all of the members of this House who have spoken either during the debate or participated in questions and comments for their input and thoughts. I also want to thank all of the committee staff for working it through and all of the staff members in either the minister’s office or other offices for their efforts.

I would like to especially thank the member from Huron–Bruce for her insight and input towards further strengthening and improving the bill. She commented yesterday that she liked working with me and I want to share my thoughts with her that I also like working with her. She and I have worked on two bills by now: Great Lakes and the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

But I disagree with her when she said that a new authority would be created. It’s very important to remember that under the new model the responsibility will be with the producers. It’s very important to have an authority. Previously the responsibility was with funded organizations under the Waste Diversion Act. That was creating a monopoly. It’s very important for the smooth transitioning of all the diversion programs that we have an authority.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I was here yesterday when the member from Huron–Bruce spoke for an hour on Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act. We do have other acts that address recycling and that ensure we have as little waste going into landfill as possible. But I really learned a few things yesterday that I haven’t forgotten. I’ve even been thinking about them this morning while walking over here. The blue boxes: Apparently the fact that they’re the colour blue is no coincidence. It was a PC government that brought in the program. I had absolutely no idea.

The member who just spoke mentioned a monopoly in the recycling business, as though she’s almost agreeing that there are cartels out there that we have to address. We have to ensure that recycling is being done in Ontario for the right reasons, and that it’s not a for-profit cartel that is taking advantage. We’ve heard stories this past year about recycled cans. They get more money in, I believe, Alberta, than they do up in the Yukon, and these intelligent people figure that out very quickly and start shipping aluminum cans from one province to the other. So there’s a lot more we can do in Ontario, but also with our sister and brother provinces, to ensure that more recycling is done.

In terms of a waste-free Ontario, well, we’re all surrounded by paper here. We’re not allowed to read from electronic devices; I want to let people at home know that. If there is prorogation of the Legislature this summer, what a waste that will be, because all the paper we use to speak on all the bills we’ve already spoken on will be thrown out and we’ll have to start all over again. Not my idea of a waste-free Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I, too, had an opportunity to listen, although at a distance, to what my colleague had to say. I think he put the views of the NDP pretty clearly: The NDP supports individual producer responsibility, which is the goal of the bill, but we have serious issues with the bill.

Speaker, the bill is entitled the Waste-Free Ontario Act, but when you look at the bill it is just a wish for a waste-free Ontario. There is no concrete measure in the bill that brings us to a waste-free Ontario. Well, already I would say the title is rather misleading. Behind the title, what is in the bill is also sort of vague. My colleague certainly went into a whole lot more detail. There are no timelines.

So this bill will go through, it will receive royal assent and the next day nothing will change. We will still have this monopoly. We still won’t have individual producer responsibility, and the overall goal of reduce, reuse and recycle that we all want will be no further ahead than before we did all this work. Why, Speaker? Because all of this depends on regulations: regulations that nobody has seen, regulations that may or may not come and regulations that may be helpful or may not be.

My colleague certainly explained some of what could be achieved and what should be achieved to support what Ontarians really believe. We believe in reducing, reusing and recycling, and a government shows its leadership by bringing us there. We have a bill that has a title that is not really what is in the bill, and then we have a bill that has no teeth.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened to the member from Toronto–Danforth. As he was going through some of the history of these battles to reduce waste and what to do with waste, I was recollecting my days on Metro council with two people he knows well: Dale Martin and Richard Gilbert. I think Richard Gilbert spent his whole life trying to alert us to the whole issue of what we are doing with our waste and that we have to have a plan. It was extremely challenging work, to say the least.

I also remember another amazing person who did a lot of work on this whole awareness thing, who should go down in history. That’s Charles Caccia, who advised Richard Gilbert on this stuff.

The thing is that this is a battle that has been going on for a long time. It’s not going to stop with this bill. It’s an ongoing effort that we’ve got to make to keep on making steps toward reducing our waste and linking this whole activity of reduction to the new economy, because we always forget that these activities of reducing waste and making our local community and our plan more sustainable create a lot of economic opportunity and employment opportunities. We can’t forget that. Think of all the people who work in waste reduction now, hundreds of thousands.

The other thing I’ll mention again that I mentioned before is, the only fault I find in a lot of the approaches, and partly in this bill, is that we don’t talk to the people who don’t use blue boxes. There are so many people in our communities who are older, who don’t buy canned food, don’t buy Kellogg’s Corn Flakes. God forbid, they don’t buy pizza in a box. They don’t waste. They don’t buy waste. So think of those people too and ask them how they do it, rather than just keep buying those pizza boxes.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to turn back to the member from Toronto–Danforth to wrap up.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to first thank my colleagues from Mississauga–Brampton South, Thornhill, Nickel Belt and Eglinton–Lawrence for their comments. I was appreciative of the fact that I had the opportunity yesterday to talk about the bill for about an hour. There are two things that I want to comment on in the time remaining to me. The first thing is that, as I tried to emphasize yesterday, I think it’s a very substantial mistake to give the powers of enforcement and compliance to this authority. I believe that those powers have to remain in the hands of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

I think privatization of enforcement is a mistake no matter what realm we’re talking about.

We actually don’t do well in this province when we’ve turned over those very substantial powers to stand-alone, quasi-autonomous bodies such as the TSSA. This government doesn’t need to actually spin off the compliance and enforcement to this private authority. It shouldn’t do it. It’s not being compelled in any way, shape or form to do it. It may see it as a cost-cutting exercise, but it is not good for waste management and it’s not good for Ontario.

The other thing I want to speak about, Speaker, is the whole necessity of making sure that we end garbage incineration in this province. There is no way that garbage incineration is compatible with a circular economy. It is not compatible with reduction of waste, because garbage-burning operations constantly want more and more waste generated to provide them with fuel. The government had an opportunity to make it explicit in this bill that garbage incineration was not something that would be promoted or supported. It didn’t take that opportunity.

In fact, the Minister of Energy has a program where Ontario is giving money to garbage incineration companies to generate electricity. These are two major flaws in the government’s approach.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate? I recognize the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Merci, madame la Présidente. I would like to let you know that I’ll be sharing my time with the great member from Ottawa South and the member from Kingston and the Islands.

I’m proud to rise this morning and share and speak on Bill 151. I actually last spoke about this bill when it was in second reading, and I’m proud to speak on it again on this third reading. As members of this House may know, I’m a passionate person about protecting the environment. Actually, about two years ago I brought forward a private member’s bill, Bill 75, the Microbead Elimination and Monitoring Act. It was introduced so we could protect the environment and our ecosystem.

We need to improve our waste diversion and recycling in this province. Waste creates GHG gases. As we are looking to reduce the GHG in this province, this act would be another tool in the toolbox to reduce the GHG footprint.

There’s also a great need in this province to increase our rate of waste diversion and recycling. Our Blue Box Program, a cornerstone for the recycling movement in the 1980s, has become commonplace in this province. We’ve been a leader in recycling. I also want to take a moment to applaud my colleague the Chair of Cabinet for what he has done to change the way we look at waste.

As some of you know, other jurisdictions in North America have a patchwork of recycling frameworks, from the sorting of bottles and plastic to paper and organic waste. Other jurisdictions often do not do the same as Ontario.

But that doesn’t mean that we should not do more to address the issue. Our residential waste diversion is around 47%, but our industrial, commercial and institutional hovers at a low of 13%.

This legislation and the draft strategy provide numerous tools and opportunities to increase diversion from landfills and incinerators. Increasing diversion is about using the right tools for the type of waste materials. These tools are also helping increase recycling among the commercial, industrial and institutional sectors and can allow the reintegration of materials into our economy.

Waste diversion also gives a boost to the economy. We can create seven jobs for every 1,000 tonnes diverted from landfill. This is a 10-job-creation increase as compared to just sending the waste to a landfill.

The lifespan of many materials sent to landfill often has not been met. We have been sending waste materials off after only one year. This eight million tonnes of waste we cart off represent $1 billion worth of recoverable materials. By increasing recovery of waste materials that would otherwise be destined for landfill, we harness their economic value.

Madam Speaker, I hope, after all the back and forth between all members of this House, that we will support this bill to protect our environment, create jobs and benefit our economy.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It’s with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to once again offer my support for Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

Just yesterday we saw Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, pass, and I’m proud to see another bill before the House that will continue the province’s effort to fight climate change.

As it stands, our province is generating waste at rates that are unsustainable in the long term. Our landfills are projected to be full in less than 20 years, and more needs to be done to extend the lifespans of existing disposal sites.

In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, I know that the city of Kingston has been doing their best to reach their goal of diverting 60% of waste by 2018. The city has launched campaigns such as #WasteNotYGK that encourage Kingstonians to share their tips and ideas on how to recycle and compost more.

Similarly, scheduled giveaway days of unwanted items help turn one neighbour’s trash into another one’s treasure, while keeping items out of garbage dumps.

Despite our best efforts, Kingston has continued to struggle to increase the amount of waste diverted every single year. Aiming to be Canada’s most sustainable city, Kingston has set an ambitious target of diverting 65% of their waste by 2020.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Very good.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Not bad.

In order to help reach these targets, however, they require strengthened legislation at a provincial level that will help increase waste diversion and resource recovery on a much wider scale.

Bill 151 helps municipalities such as the city of Kingston to achieve their environmental goals by making producers more accountable for recovering resources and reducing waste associated with their products and packaging.

Producers are best able to control the amount of waste being produced by designing long-lasting, reusable and recyclable products. By making producers fully responsible, this bill also gives them the flexibility of tailoring waste management in a way that works best for their company and is most cost-efficient and effective.

The proposed legislation will help benefit Ontario households, who will be empowered and encouraged to recycle more because producers will be made responsible for providing customers with clear information about how to manage their end-of-life products and packaging, including information on drop-off sites. Ninety-two per cent of Kingstonians are already using their blue boxes and grey bins. This legislation will only help to ensure that even more is put into the bins.

Madam Speaker, it is also important to note that this bill will not only have tremendous environmental impacts, but it will also have incredible economic benefits for our province. It’s estimated that for every 1,000 tonnes of waste diverted in Ontario, seven jobs have been created. Not only that, but studies have shown that Ontario’s existing waste diversion programs can create up to 10 times more jobs than waste disposal. If, as a province, we recovered 60% of waste material, we could create almost 13,000 jobs and contribute $1.5 billion to Ontario’s GDP.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the facilities at the Kingston Area Recycling Centre. It was great to see so many employees so focused on waste reduction. I do look forward to seeing the waste diversion in Kingston and the Islands continue to grow.

I have to say that when this bill was originally introduced, I was very, very pleased because I’m a bit of a recycling nut, and I have been focused on recycling for an awfully long time. I heard a story some number of years ago that occurred in either Norway or Sweden—actually, some number of decades ago, truth be told—about the problems that were being experienced in grocery stores, for example, and how much waste was happening in grocery stores. Products were being delivered packaged. A bunch of broccoli had a piece of Styrofoam on the bottom and it was wrapped in cellophane.

I think we can all remember times like that when we were seeing products that were very much over-packaged. What the citizens did was they refused to buy that material. There was a bit of an activist movement that happened. They unwrapped the material in the grocery store, left the packaging behind, ensuring that the grocer was obliged to tell the wholesaler they weren’t going to buy their products anymore if they continued to have that much packaging. So there’s many things that can be done. I think that individual consumers and residents of our ridings are working hard toward it.

I think that we’re ready for a change in our way of thinking with respect to recycling.

We will continue to work on that. Through legislation such as Bill 151, as well as Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, this government is taking decisive action and proving its commitment to creating a greener, cleaner and more sustainable environment and economy for generations to come. I hope that all members in this House recognize the importance of this bill and will support it.

Merci beaucoup. Meegwetch. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Again, it’s good to see you in the chair.

I’d like to begin this morning by thanking the minister for bringing this bill forward and congratulating him on that, and thanking all those in his office, those in the ministry and legislative counsel, who worked very hard on this bill; the stakeholders who came and presented, took their time, sent in submissions; and all the members of the committee. We had over 200 amendments at committee and there was a very collaborative—

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Two hundred and forty.

Mr. John Fraser: Two hundred and forty, I’ve just been reminded by the member from Mississauga–Brampton South. She did great work at committee as well.

It was a collaborative effort. There was a potential to really get bogged down and not get this done. So I’d like to thank everybody for their efforts in that regard.

This is a very important bill that connects with Bill 172. As the member from Kingston and the Islands said, we just passed that yesterday. These two things very much connect together.

I had the opportunity yesterday afternoon—luckily, I was able to get here at about a quarter after 5. I listened to the member from Toronto Danforth—not his full hour but a good portion of that hour—and I could see his passion and deep understanding. He has been following this file for a while, and I’d like to thank him for his support of the bill.

I don’t necessarily agree with all of his criticisms. Some of the things that he did raise are of concern to me; I don’t think we necessarily had to address those in the bill. I think that the roles of delegated authorities in terms of providing a service to Ontario and ensuring that things like the Technical Standards and Safety Authority ensure public safety, for instance: I think that they do a good job in that regard. I don’t share his misgivings about the delegated authority model for recycling.

I would also like to say a few words about the concern that there’s nothing specific in this bill with regard to goals. I want to remind the member from Nickel Belt that these things will be set through regulation, and that regulation can set targets through the minister. It’s an effective way of ensuring that we can make those targets, adjust those targets, and respond to the needs and the changing things that are happening in our communities.

I was happy to hear the member from Kingston and the Islands talk a bit about what she had read about what happened in Norway with regard to packaging in stores. My background is in the grocery business. I spent 22 years in the grocery business. We were great recyclers in some ways, especially around the areas of cardboard and deposit return bottles, but not so much on food waste and packaging.

If you look around the world right now—this is actually something that doesn’t directly relate to this bill, but I do think it needs to be raised in this Legislature: food waste. Right now, France has taken a very hard stance against wasting food. It is absolutely incredible, the food that’s wasted in this world. We have enough to feed everybody, except we just can’t seem to get it to everybody. As we move forward, not just in this Legislature but in our communities and in society, we’re going to have to address that issue of reducing that waste because there is an issue not only of value and an environmental concern with organic waste, but there is a social injustice with the waste of food.

I have to let you know that when I open up my fridge when I get back to Ottawa and I have to clean it out and I’m throwing out things that are either a leftover or something that we purchased that wasn’t fully utilized, I find that very difficult. It’s from the perspective of, “That’s a waste; that’s not right.”

I think we’ve taken that position on other things when we look at this bill in terms of the need for us to reduce the amount of IC&I waste and how much we’re putting into landfills. I think those measures are important, and that’s what our communities are asking us to do.

I’ll go back a bit to what the member from Toronto–Danforth said in terms of the thing that we want most. The thing that we want most is reuse. Recycling is a good thing to do, but it does leave a carbon footprint. It does require more work than simply reusing a bottle. Also, when we reduce packaging we reduce that waste.

The challenge is that what you want to do is incent innovation so that people are looking at those challenges, those problems, that waste that we have, that packaging that we have, and look at it in a way that drives some economic value to the people who are producing that. There’s a balance between how you regulate things in government and how you set targets. You don’t want to prescribe, because if you prescribe, you run the risk of stifling innovation. It’s a delicate balance. That will be the challenge going forward in the regulations.

On a lighter note, I was really pleased to learn from the member from Thornhill this morning that blue boxes are actually blue because—we can thank the Conservative Party for that. At the time, I resisted time saying it may be an indication that they’re good at recycling some old ideas.

Sorry. I just thought I’d share that with you. That dropped like a rock. There we go.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Keep your day job.

Mr. John Fraser: Keep my day job, yes. Mum is watching. I’m sorry, Mum. I tried. It just didn’t roll out the right way.

I do want to say, in closing, that as with most things in government, as with most initiatives that occur in this Legislature and through government, our work is never done on this. I’m looking forward to this bill and the support of the Legislature for the measures that are in this bill and the regulations through the minister, but even when those are done, we won’t be finished.

I believe that we have to address the issue of food waste. I don’t think it’s just an economic issue or an issue of greenhouse gases in the environment. I think it’s a serious social justice issue, and we need to look at that. We need to find a way, collectively, not just as government and as legislators, to make that an issue, as they made that an issue in Norway with the packaging. Consumers demanded that. They took action.

In this case, I think it would be very much taking action, not just with businesses in terms of—as they have in France—what their responsibility is toward food waste, but what is our responsibility as individuals, as we consume, as we purchase food, as we, quite frankly, like I do when I get home on weekends, spend time throwing things out of the fridge, which actually causes me great concern. It’s not just because I’m parsimonious. It’s because throwing out food is just not the right thing to do.

Anyway, I want to thank the members of the Legislature for their support of the bill and their co-operation that we had in committee, and, I think, the genuine commitment that every member in this Legislature has toward ensuring that we do the right thing in terms of advancing the environment as an item of critical importance in this province, not just for us right now, but obviously for our children and our children’s children.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I didn’t support the bill for a lot of different reasons. But I do support what the member from Ottawa said about food waste. I read the same

article in the Globe and Mail, and I also read the

article about France.

I have a great interest in food because I was fortunate enough to pass a private member’s bill that was made part of the Local Food Act, where it gives farmers a 25% tax cut. I noticed in one of the articles I was reading the other day that they talked about that. I know it has had a major impact. I’m waiting till June to get the numbers from the Ontario food banks, if they can show us—I know what it has done locally in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton. They increased their receipts that they issued to farmers from—I’m going from memory now— 33,000 to 53,000.

They have what they call a mobile market, where they go out to areas of the city and the county where people don’t have transportation to get in town to their regular market. They’ve added three new locations that they stop at to get fresh fruit and vegetables. They have a number of new donors in the farm and greenhouse community that are also supporting this program.

I just noticed one of the numbers here, a statistic. It said that of the $31 billion worth of food that Canadians send to landfill every year, 47% is from the home. That would be out of the member from Ottawa’s fridge and my fridge, as well. It bothers me, too.

I don’t do the shopping at our home. The odd time I get sent out, I always come home with more things than I’m supposed to. I don’t get sent very often because I buy things I like. I know that stuff gets thrown out at our house, too. I hope my wife is not watching. It always bothers me. I think, “Why did we buy this stuff in the first place if we’re not going to eat it?” So I share—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the people I represent in London West to offer some comments in the wake of the speech from the member for Ottawa South. I have to say, I was delighted to hear that there were 240 amendments introduced to this bill at third reading. That is certainly a welcome departure from many of the other pieces of legislation we have seen come through this House at third reading. I think that this is a great precedent. It’s a great model that we should be using going forward.

I know that many of those amendments were because of the tireless advocacy of my colleague, the member for Toronto–Danforth. I have heard, on many occasions, members across the way talk about the leadership that has been shown by the member for Toronto–Danforth on this bill, the Waste-Free Ontario Act, as well as on the cap-and-trade bill and the climate change bill.

I know that his expertise, his knowledge of the environmental sector and also his ability to listen to what people who come before the committee have to say and to capture their feedback and to propose amendments has been very valuable to the government, but also to the people of this province because what we have, in the end, is a bill that more broadly reflects the concerns that Ontarians have.

However, there still is a lot of room to grow. There remain some issues around the lack of timelines with this bill. The cost of blue boxes continues to be a concern for municipalities. This is a good step forward, but—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Questions and comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to be able to say a few words on the Waste-Free Ontario Act. We’ve got a really interesting opportunity to do some good work here. One of the things that we note is landfill and the fact that so much goes into landfill that creates greenhouse gas emissions.

Guelph, actually, my hometown, was one of the early adopters in terms of green energy. We have equipment where we capture the methane from the landfill and use it to generate electricity. But that’s actually a pretty expensive way in some ways of dealing with greenhouse gases. The better way is not to put the organics into landfill in the first place.

We also in Guelph have a specific organic waste stream. When my garbage goes out in Guelph—and if you live in Guelph, when you move to town, you have to get an instruction manual for your garbage. We have three bins that go out. One of those bins is strictly organics, so it’s being separated at the house to get the organics out of the stream that goes to landfill. That’s one of the things that we all need to be able to do as we think about the ways in which we handle waste in Ontario so that we, in fact, are having less of an impact on the environment in the long run. I think this bill will be very helpful in getting us there.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I want to just add a few comments to the debate. I also want to talk about it from a slightly different angle, and that is the degree to which this has penetrated the public mind. What I want to use as my example of the lack of penetration, I would argue, is what’s out on the roadsides today. As soon as the snow goes, you see all the accumulation of garbage that has been tossed out of presumably moving cars onto the side of the road.

Many municipalities have quite successful garbage pickup Saturdays and things like that. I always applaud the people who go out and do that as a voluntary activity—certainly I’ve done it myself—but it’s the wrong people who are out there. Where are the people who threw the stuff out of the car? Do they understand about waste diversion? I dare say not, by what I see.

I have a property that is a corner, so I get the pleasure of more garbage because there’s more frontage. There is new garbage on the side of the road within a couple of days after you’ve picked it up. So while the government is engaged in a very complex and potentially successful method, I’m concerned about who is still out there who throws out their paper coffee cups. That’s the group that needs to understand.

I have four composters in my garden. I don’t have the same problem with refrigerator guilt. I just put it out there and it’s going to do more good in the composter.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return to the government side. The member from Ottawa South to wrap up.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the members from Sarnia and London West, the Minister of Education and the member from York–Simcoe.

I do want to congratulate the member from Sarnia on his private member’s bill. I think that was a great private member’s bill. I wish it were mine. I think it’s going to do a lot of good and I’m glad that we share that same challenge with fridge and food. Someone passed me a note here. I won’t assign it, but it says: “Don’t cook so much food.” That may be one of the problems.

I don’t want to go on about it because I’ve already gone on about it and I want to say a few more things. I think it’s a really serious issue. It does relate to packaging and it does relate to retailers and it does relate to us as individuals.

I thank the member from London West for the words of support. There were 240 amendments. It was a lot of work. There was really a great deal of co-operation. I know the member from York–Simcoe was there as well at—I’m sorry, it was the member from Whitby–Oshawa who was there. It was very co-operative. I think we made the bill better, much better, through that process. Not everybody got everything that they wanted, but I think it’s a good bill.

When we work together like that in this Legislature, then we’re able to produce something that’s truly reflective of what this Legislature means in terms of putting forward legislation that is going to be effective for those goals that we set and for the people that we serve. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Harris: Good morning. It’s a pleasure to address Bill 151. I recall wanting to speak to this on second reading, but just as I was about to get up and speak, they called for a vote and it went to committee. Here it’s back, so I get a chance to finally speak to it.

This is obviously the Liberals’ latest attempt to finally institute waste policy that actually realizes promised higher diversion rates following really what is a trail of successive ministers who have in fact failed to do so. So perhaps congratulations. I see the minister is in the House this morning. Good on him for that.

Of course, it’s timely. After 12 years, this government is still chasing the 60% waste diversion rate that Leona Dombrowsky promised back in 2004. Twelve years and five environment ministers later they’ve failed to make more than a dent, with diversion rates stuck at 25%. That’s 35% below their target. From Dombrowsky to Broten, Gerretsen, Wilkinson, Bradley and now our current minister, they did a better job of recycling cabinet than they did recycling waste.

What went wrong? Well, what went wrong was that not one of these ministers nor their governments would admit the clear fault in their plan from the very beginning; that is, the more the government gets in the way with excessive programs and agencies, the less likelihood you have to succeed. So we’ve been stuck with bad programs built on bad policy, which, we’ve been telling them for much of the past 12 years, simply wasn’t going to work. Of course, we’re still right.

It was just a few short years ago that I was standing in this House to denounce what was then the Liberal government’s answer to waste reduction, Bill 91, the very hopefully titled Waste Reduction Act. The problem was, as I told government members in this House during debate, despite the title, Bill 91 did absolutely nothing to address the second-largest source of waste here in the province of Ontario.

That’s right: Instead of actually taking aim at waste, the Liberal plan was to double down on recycling cartels bent on imposing eco taxes here in the province on consumers—eco tax programs that I warned would unfairly increase costs for Ontarians while failing to make any meaningful change in the province’s overall diversion rate. I remind you, Speaker, that we’re still stuck at 25%.

That’s why I took time in this Legislature to champion our party plan that would actually increase waste diversion. It was a plan that recognized the economic potential of the recycling industry. It was a plan that recognized that with the right regulatory system, businesses would invest in recovering old tires, plastics and metals that could be recycled into new products and marketed to consumers across the country and even the world. It was a plan that would unleash the potential of the recycling industry by taking that first initial step of getting government out of the way.

Speaker, it would be rejected by the Liberal government, this plan that would have eliminated each and every Liberal eco tax program. It would have scrapped the Liberals’ recycling cartels. It would have abolished the Liberals’ eco tax agency Waste Diversion Ontario and returned the government to its true role as a tough regulator. It represented a first step toward a competitive marketplace that would thrive under the right conditions—conditions including setting a measurable and achievable recycling target for businesses, establishment of environmental standards, and enforcement of the rules.

The idea was to have businesses themselves hold the responsibility, with a competitive marketplace to find the most effective, efficient and productive way to increase recycling. Waste Diversion Ontario would no longer be telling industry how to run its operations, and actual waste diversion would finally move forward.

While the Liberals were clearly opposed to our approach in 2013, fast-forward to today—and what a difference three years can make. Today, after progressive committee amendments, we now see a Liberal government proposal that has largely borrowed from the PC vision for an open recycling marketplace. And while, as you heard from our current critic in response to the newfound approach, some concerns do still remain with Bill 151, I’m glad to see this government take a couple of pages from our book, recognizing that there truly are no monopolies on a good idea, and borrowing from the effective proposal and PC vision we brought forward just a few short years ago.

I also want to remind folks listening at home that I’ll be splitting my time with my colleague from Thornhill—and for those who are here, of course.

To that end, Speaker, I do want to further commend the work of committee members who took time to address a number of our concerns. Specifically, I want to commend them for addressing concerns relating to timelines to eliminate all those costly Liberal eco tax programs. You see, Speaker, while the legislation introduced at first reading recognized the need to finally deal with these programs that have left us spinning our wheels on stagnant diversion rates, after all these years of experience with this Liberal government, we felt we needed assurances that this same government would actually act to eliminate the many-armed monster they created, of course, under Dalton McGuinty.

I want to thank the committee members for hearing our call on effective, workable guarantees and report-back mechanisms to ensure government’s steps to scrap the used tire program, the waste electrical and electronic equipment program, and the Orange Drop program.

Thanks to the work of our caucus members at committee, the amended version of Bill 151 now provides specific mechanisms to hold government to the eco wind-down. The authority must include progress updates on the annual report on the phase-out of eco tax programs and the windup of Stewardship Ontario, Ontario Electronic Stewardship and Ontario Tire Stewardship. Second, the minister must report these progress updates to the House every year. Third, clear timelines have been established in law to phase out eco taxes and wind up IFOs once new regulations are in place.

I also want to recognize the government’s inclusion of the Competition Act, as I originally called for in my first letter to then-Minister Bradley nearly four years ago. While government failed to recognize my call for the addition of Competition Act reforms in Bill 91 at that time, I’m glad to see that someone was listening and they added it to this current bill, Bill 151.

Thanks to the Liberal reversal, government will no longer be able to create cartels or government-protected monopolies, making each company responsible for recycling adhere to federal competition laws. In the end, we established a fair, free and open recycling market that will work to achieve our goals for higher waste diversion.

Speaker, I would also like to note the committee work to pass amendments allowing for the quick elimination of eco taxes while ensuring a gradual, careful transition of the Blue Box Program.

There is no doubt that the Blue Box Program is the Ontario waste diversion success story, achieving diversion rates of 67% since its introduction by the previous PC government, while recovering paper and packaging so it can be recycled into new products. While the success continues, with 95% of Ontarians able to access curbside recycling, challenges have emerged under the Liberals as disputes over funding and services grow between industry and our municipalities.

Today, after growing calls for answers from all sides, we can support Bill 151’s proposed solution to stop cost battle before it escalates to arbitration, an interim solution to settle disputes until the Blue Box Program can be fully transitioned into an industry-led program.

While it has been heartening to see government take the steps we’ve been calling for on this side of the House, I’ll remind members of some of the steps that remain, steps like ridding this province of the Liberals’ eco tax agency, Waste Diversion Ontario, and dropping all the plans to create a force of waste cops to police recycling bins and garbage cans across the province, if you can picture that.

On the first point, Waste Diversion Ontario should be abolished, plain and simple. Instead, have a limited authority to collect data and monitor outcomes. WDO has never achieved its mandate and actually never will. It’s unnecessary and, until its elimination, will continue to stand in the way of the waste diversion goals that we all share. To be clear, Bill 151 falls short on this front and continues WDO while giving it massive new powers, including enforcement.

While we’re talking enforcement, government has to drop the waste-cop plan entirely. And we’re not alone on this one. Even Smokey Thomas, of OPSEU, has issued a press release warning of the government’s hiring of private waste cops. Talk about waste. Why would this government have us waste our taxpayer dollars on a force of waste cops to sift through our blue boxes? It’s a waste of time, it’s a waste of money and effort, and clearly needs to be left at the curb.

So while some concerns remain, I remain hopeful that, as much of the heavy lifting we did a couple of years ago has been reflected in many ways with the new directions we see in Bill 151, we may—Ontario may—now finally be poised to achieve the higher waste diversion targets that successive Liberal governments have paid lip service to and failed to achieve for a dozen years now. After all those years, I think we’ve waited long enough.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Thornhill.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to rise after my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga and speak on Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act.

We’ve had a lot of speakers already on this bill, and everybody is, I would say, on the same page in terms of more can be done and more should be done.

The question obviously comes down to how to go about this. As we’ve heard, there have been a lot of proposals put forward in the Legislature from all parties in terms of how we can get everybody on board. It does sometimes come down to the carrot and the stick. I’m a firm believer that you do need to carry that stick sometimes, but I prefer to use the carrot and entice people to do what we need them to do, to educate them and raise public awareness.

We heard from the member from—let me see; I have it here. Anyhow, I don’t want to say his name. He is from—

Interjection.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Ottawa South—that’s correct—and the member from Mississauga–Brampton South said that there were exactly 240 amendments in committee on this Waste-Free Ontario Act. That’s quite a few amendments. You can look at it both ways, Madam Speaker. You can look at it that all three parties really took a good look, put a lot of thought, met with a lot of stakeholders and took a lot of advice. They wanted to make the bill stronger, wanted the bill to pass and do what it’s supposed to do.

You can also say that maybe some people who wrote the bill weren’t doing their homework and could have ensured that not that many amendments needed to be there in the first place, because that’s quite a few. Unfortunately, the carbon-tax credit bill had over 700 amendments. That, I find a little bit troubling, because I almost feel like maybe we had to go back to the drawing board and say, “We didn’t get it right the first time.” Amendments, in my opinion, are really to make changes, but not to the actual guts of what you’re trying to achieve with a bill. It’s just to ensure that everything is being taken care of and that nobody is going to be unfairly disadvantaged by the bill.

I did some research—and I’ve listened to our critic, the member from Huron–Bruce, who spoke yesterday for almost an hour on this bill. What she said that really surprised me, as I mentioned before in the House, was that the Blue Box Program was a PC initiative. We all know how successful that has been. I’ve been joking over and over about why the colour blue—and I guess that’s not a big surprise, why they would choose the colour blue—and how easily it could have been a red box program if it had been this government who had started it. I’m just kidding. We all like the blue boxes; I’m not looking to change the colour.

We can improve the Blue Box Program in many municipalities. I’ve wondered for decades why there aren’t covers for blue boxes or at least some kind of bungee cord that hooks on. We’ve heard from the member from Simcoe North about littering that goes on—people throwing cups out of car windows. Yes, unfortunately, that does take place, but too often littering on our streets is just from blue boxes that didn’t have covers in many municipalities.

Toronto has the big blue boxes with wheels that the trucks pick up. There are pros and cons to that way of managing the program. In Vaughan, where I live, we have blue boxes that are just boxes, and people put papers on top without thinking to put something a little heavy on top to keep it from blowing around.

We are not able to recycle Styrofoam and many other products. I see the difficulty in putting more items in the blue boxes when we’re not able to completely recycle everything we’re already taking. That’s something I really haven’t heard addressed so far: the fact that, yes, we’re not collecting enough items. We’re only hitting 25%, and the government had a target of more than double that for waste diversion. Unfortunately, too often we’re hearing, sometimes substantiated in fact, that the items collected for recycling are not being recycled. Many of them are just sitting in warehouses.

Some of them are obviously going to landfills somewhere, and that’s extremely unfortunate because people take the time to buy into these programs. They wash their jars and containers out, and wrap their papers and cardboard. But how are we going to convince people to do a good job with waste diversion if they’re hearing rumours, sometimes substantiated in fact, that some of the items they’re working so hard and spending so much time and effort to put in the appropriate containers aren’t being recycled?

Yes, we know there are a lot of public awareness campaigns that come and go about littering and recycling, but I think that, as a government, we have to first address the fact of all the papers we have here that we’re using, that we’re still not in the digital age in the Legislature, that we walk out in our hallways and—I’m embarrassed actually to say this for the people listening at home—we have radiators giving off heat that you could fry an egg on in the same room as air conditioners sometimes. That does not sound like an environmentally conscious or aware government building.

Yes, it’s expensive to address some of the concerns to ensure that the buildings we live and work in are up to standards in terms of less waste, in terms of recycling, but also less waste in terms of heating, air conditioning, insulation and things like that. We all want to see more being done.

I want to address, in terms of more being done, a woman named Mary Atkinson from Richmond Hill, who sent in a letter to the editor last week in our local paper, the Thornhill Liberal, which is part of Metroland. I’m just going to read it into the House. I don’t want to edit it. I didn’t get permission to edit it. This is her letter:

“Recycling Adventure Disappointing.

“I live in a condo on Yonge north of 16th Avenue and am president of the board of directors. Our board decided to offer a bulk collection of used compact fluorescent bulbs and lighting tubes in our building, as we thought no one would be willing to drive to the recycling centres with one tube or one light bulb.

“We consulted with our ward councillor, who assured us that we would have no problems in offering this service to our residents.

“On April 2”—so that’s not so long ago—“I felt we had collected enough of these hazardous items to make my first trip....

“I drove to the Elgin Mills facility (closest to my condo) where the individuals who met me were very accommodating.

“They took my bin of light bulbs and, after sorting them, explained they only collect the compact fluorescent bulbs (curly ones), no others, leaving me to take back the rest for disposal in landfill/garbage. So far, so good,” she says.

“When I mentioned I also had fluorescent tubes, I was told they do not collect these because the disposal process is different; I would have to take them to the Markham or Vaughan regional sites.

“My suggestion: Why doesn’t the Elgin Mills facility collect both and when a sufficient number of tubes has been collected, transfer them to the Markham or Vaughan sites?” I’m going to stop there, because it is a long letter.

I just want to say that here’s somebody who is taking the time—the president of her condo—to figure out how to encourage people in her building to recycle. She knows that they’re not going to bother recycling the bulbs if they have to collect them themselves or bring them themselves. So she develops this little program, and then she’s met with roadblocks every step of the way. Eventually, she’s told that a condo is a commercial entity and she has to go to the commercial recycling depots, which are even further.

I do want to give credit to the newspaper, because they contacted environmental promotion and protection at the region of York in Newmarket, which responded to her letter and said that they think improvements could be made, but part of the problem, they felt, was some of the staff at the depots weren’t aware of the rules and gave her a bit of the runaround.

I want to commend Mary Atkinson for writing in and I want to commend Laura McDowell, the director of the program at York region, for responding.

I also want to commend the Thornhill Liberal newspaper of Metroland for taking the time to send the letter, before they published it, to get a response from the region. Why? Because they want to encourage people. They’re worried that if they just publish that letter on its own, people are going to say, “Forget it, I’m not going to those depots. Look, they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re making it too complicated and I don’t want to be involved.”

Congratulations to all of them for a job well done.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I had the opportunity to weigh in very briefly on this bill when it was at second reading, which seems to be a bit of a theme that we have with the government as of late, when they’re using all of their closure motions. Nevertheless, I was able to get in for a couple of minutes.

I was able to talk about some of the great work that our communities are doing to divert items away from their landfills. I specifically talked about the community of Red Lake and their creation of a freecycle shed. I wanted to also build on that and talk about some of the work that all communities are doing with managing recycling. They’re doing an excellent job.

In the case of Red Lake, this also comes with a tremendous cost. It comes with a tremendous cost for all municipalities. With Red Lake, they’re trucking their materials at least 250 kilometres. That isn’t cheap. In fact, cost is an issue that was a main concern to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. As the member for Toronto–Danforth pointed out in his remarks yesterday, these costs are not annoyances. They’re not incidental. They are tremendous costs for these communities. New Democrats recognize that municipalities are partners in recycling and they need to be recognized and treated in a way that is respectful of the work that they’re doing.

I have to say that I’m proud of the work New Democrats have done to expand the roles of the municipalities in a formal way. We proposed an amendment to set up a municipal advisory body that would serve as a body comprised of municipal and recycling stakeholders for the government to consult with. But I have to say it’s very unfortunate that this amendment was defeated by the government, as there were some changes that would have been very helpful to municipalities.

This bill does still have, I think, a long way to go. I know it is third reading, but I would like to see some of these changes.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Just on the issue of municipalities, the estimates from our experts are about $117 million less cost for municipalities, so this provides some relief. AMO has been very involved with this. We’re working together on the implementation, and our municipalities continue to be a priority here.

I do want to address some of the comments by the member for Kitchener–Conestoga. I think that we should all have a little humility here. This bill is very different from Bill 91. When Premier Wynne became elected as our new Premier not that long ago, she said to me, as the environment and climate change minister, “I want you not to be held hostage by previous legislation and actions, and take a new approach to this.”

So I looked at private members’ bills. I talked to members in this House. Some of the folks in the official opposition have said that they see some of their fingerprints on this, and they have. We listened to the opposition and others and we built a very different kind of bill, with many ideas from Liberal members, Conservative members and New Democrats.

What I mean by “We should all have a little humility” is that the system we’re replacing was not of this government. It was created in the last year of the last Conservative administration. I don’t say that in a way—because I think that the old system we’re replacing was created with some very good ideas. I’m not criticizing the members of the party opposite.

As they tried to implement it and as we tried to implement it, we recognized that the number of IFOs and the system simply didn’t work. We worked with it for many years, as the member said, through many Ministers of the Environment. You don’t want to dump on every good new idea.

It didn’t work. I don’t think that we have to kick each other in the head. I think that we’ve worked on a better solution. Rather than saying, “The Liberals didn’t do it right” or “The Conservatives didn’t do it right,” we tried something that didn’t work together and we’re fixing it together. We should be proud of that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise again. Waste diversion is a big issue back in my riding. One of the landfill sites at Petrolia is going to be capped and closed by the end of this year. The more we can do to have waste diversion will certainly have a big impact in my riding and across Ontario, I know, as well.

We talked a little bit in my comments last time about diverting food waste—not waste food, but good food—from landfill sites. That was part of the thinking behind my private member’s bill that I introduced because at the time, I think that in Ontario, they were saying that 24 million pounds of food a year were going to landfill. I thought that was atrocious, when I found out how many people—children, adults and seniors—are going without good, wholesome food. That was the genesis behind that bill and the thinking behind it.

Lo and behold, the Environmental Commissioner of the day—I had never even thought of approaching that individual—did a report and supported that private member’s bill, saying it would certainly free up landfill space from food needlessly going there, because there was a need for it. There was another use that that food could be put to. There was an obvious need. There was an opportunity to recycle that food.

There was nothing wrong with the food. Take it from the farmers themselves, and we’re working with supermarkets now and the big suppliers to do that. I understand that it’s being more of a success all the time.

The Minister of Agriculture and I have talked about this. He and I have talked about getting the numbers from the Ontario food banks sometime in early June and then sharing them with others—how well that program is working, things we can do to make it work even better and maybe complement this waste diversion act by diverting even more food from landfill sites.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: This is the second time that I’ve spoken for a couple of minutes. I’ve done 20 minutes on the bill.

I think something we should hit on hard is the fact that this bill—and I want to compliment Peter Tabuns: I know I shouldn’t say his name, so I won’t say it—from Toronto–Danforth—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): You need to remind yourself to address each other by riding.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I already said it, so I remind myself back. I apologize.

I want to say that the key to this was there were 240 amendments to the bill. I want to credit all three parties, including the member from Toronto–Danforth. They worked extremely hard to put a bill together. I’ve been in a lot of committees. With no disrespect to anybody, a lot of times the NDP may have good ideas, the Conservatives may have good ideas, but we don’t get amendments to some of the bills. I think that’s a mistake. I think everybody has lots to offer. They have lots of talent.

In this particular case I want to compliment the minister. I know that you worked closely with our member. I’m sure you worked closely with the PCs, but I don’t know how closely. But I think the important thing is that we worked together on a bill. Why would you want to work together on a bill? Take a look at our young pages, because quite frankly, that’s what we’re faced with. If we don’t fix the environment, our young people, our air, our quality of life, our water are all in jeopardy. That’s what this is all about.

We have to make sure that we leave an environment where they can breathe the air, that they’re not having extra diseases like we’re seeing with Lyme disease and things that are happening because of climate change. I want to compliment him on those two issues.

I’d also like to say—I’ve only got 15 seconds left—the importance of making sure we fix this just for my home riding. If you take a look at the VQA wines, if you take a look at the fruit trees, we really need the weather to stay where it is. If we continue down the road we’re going down, temperatures are going to go up three and four degrees. It’s going to have a devastating effect on my riding.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return back to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Just building off the member for Niagara Falls’s comments on thanking those involved in terms of all three parties coming together to provide amendments and solutions to strengthening the bill, I know the minister chimed in and talked about a legacy or history lesson on where this all started. He’s right. The previous PC government did bring forward ways to divert more waste in the province, but it was never intended to do what, in fact, the Liberals did with it: spin it off into a lot of these IFOs. So now we’re correcting what was done.

I do want to step in and thank our critic, the member for Huron–Bruce, Lisa Thompson—of course, significant work, time and dedication on this bill. She also had several other bills in committee. On top of that, it was a very technical bill. Consulting with stakeholders—stakeholders also need to be commended. I can think of the Ontario Waste Management Association, which has put a lot of time and effort into this from day one, and the Retail Council of Canada; AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Food & Consumer Products of Canada.

I will commend the member for Mississauga–Brampton South, who conveyed her cordial relationship with our critic in getting things put together in committee. But we also need to recognize the staff: the staff in the member for Huron–Bruce’s office, of course. Shane is a very technical-oriented guy, working weekends to put the amendments together and dealing with legislative counsel, of course. We couldn’t have done it without a significant staff effort. Shane, thank you for putting that together. Of course, Jessica, in the member for Huron–Bruce’s office, also dedicated significant time.

OLIP Alison, I’m sure, chimed in and was able to assist. Congratulations to all. A special thanks to our critic, Lisa Thompson from Huron–Bruce, for bringing forward some critical amendments that were passed to help strengthen this bill.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing it’s almost 10:15, I’m going to recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery today I’d like to introduce Mayor Ron Gerow from Township of Havelock Belmont Methuen; Brian Gratton, who is the deputy clerk and economic development officer for Havelock Belmont Methuen; Stuart Harrison, who is the general manager of the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce; and Sandra Dueck, who is the chief adviser to the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce. They’re all here today for the sixth annual Peterborough Day, which will occur in rooms 228-230 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., an opportunity to see what the riding of Peterborough has to offer—and Kawartha Dairy.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’m pleased to introduce on behalf of the member from Richmond Hill the family of page captain Alfred Shi: his mother, Jeanne Ye; father, Lionel Shi; grandmother Gui-ying Yan; and grandfather Zi-jin Ye. They will be in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome, in the east gallery, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond and Bonnie McCool from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West.

M me France Gélinas: My guests are making their way in. We have Edna Hapin, who is a home care PSW; Chrystal Becker, also a home care PSW; Lorna Abraham, a long-term-care PSW; Lisa Jocko, who is in home care; Michael Spitale from SEIU; Brigid Buckingham from SEIU; and Kristof Barocz from SEIU. A great meeting this morning; welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome, from the fantastic riding of Newmarket–Aurora, Lori Barnes, a constituent, who is also the executive officer of governance and board services at the Toronto District School Board.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have some introductions this morning—bear with me.

On behalf of the member for St. Paul’s and page captain Brendan Weeks, I’m pleased to introduce Brendan’s mother, Susan Tiam-Fook Weeks, and his grandfather, Henry Tiam-Fook. Ni hao. They are in the public gallery.

On behalf of the member for Mississauga–Erindale, I’m pleased, on behalf of page captain Ayan Siddiqui, to introduce his father, Kamran Siddiqui, who is also in the public gallery this morning. Salam alaikum.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to introduce my constituents from London North Centre, Richard Lucas and Karen Lucas. They are parents of a great advocate, Brent Lucas, in my riding of London North Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re happy you’re here.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’m delighted to welcome members from the OLTCA: Kimberly and Ahmad. Thank you so much for joining us.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just wanted to introduce Mykola Zakaliuzhny. He is a member of our Ukrainian Canadian community and a journalist, here for the flag-raising at noon on the front lawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today are three guests of mine: a dear friend of mine, Pat Eyzenga, a friend of the MPP, not the MP; June Taylor; and Sue Howe. Welcome, and glad you’re here with us at Queen’s Park.

Wearing of historical costume

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I believe, Mr. Speaker, you’ll find we have unanimous consent that the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington be permitted to wear a period costume to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Perth military settlement. He would like to wear that costume during statements this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve been asked for unanimous consent for the member to wear a period costume for his statement this afternoon. Do we agree? Agreed.

On behalf of all of us, I can’t wait.

Visitor

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us today in the west members’ gallery is Rachel Ewan, who is a PhD student at Sir Wilfrid Laurier. She recently contacted my office and said she wanted to learn more about politics. She’s here today watching us, so let’s set a great example, guys.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. On May 12, the Minister of the Environment said that “home heating ... is going to have to come from sources other than natural gas.” And this week, the member from Beaches–East York said that this is about getting people off fossil fuels and onto electricity.

Mr. Speaker, this government is forcing the people of Ontario to convert from natural gas to electricity for home heating. That will mean that families will have to pay an additional $3,000 a year to heat their homes.

To the Acting Premier: Does this government really think that Ontario families can afford 3,000 more dollars a year on their already exorbitant bills?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to say thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for asking this question, because it gives us an opportunity to very clearly say that we are not forcing homeowners off natural gas—full stop. The question is based on a twisting—they’re twisting and torqueing, trying to rile people up. We are not forcing people off natural gas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Acting Premier: Obviously, the Acting Premier is going to need to explain their new position on natural gas to the Minister of the Environment and to the member for Beaches–East York.

Back to the government’s plan to eliminate natural gas, and what it’s going to mean for Ontario’s small businesses: Jamey Heaton employs 21 people in North Bay. He owns a company, Bavarian Link Meat Products. His electricity costs are more than $110,000 a year, the second-largest cost after salaries. To keep costs down, he says, they cook mostly with natural gas. He said that if he could reduce hydro costs by 50%, he could expand his business and create new jobs. But not only are hydro rates going to keep Jamey from expanding his business; the plan to eliminate natural gas will kill jobs and put him out of business.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question to the Acting Premier is, Come clean on your plan. Be—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham-Kent–Essex, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you say it again, you’ll get a second one.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let me try again: We will not be forcing people off natural gas—full stop. In fact, we are expanding access to natural gas. In 2015, we announced $230 million to expand access to natural gas to rural Ontario. This is great news, and I actually think the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All of you are not helping me. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order. I’ve got a good memory.

Mr. Todd Smith: That is a good memory.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve also got keen ears. If you say it again, you’ll get a second.

Please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to support our expansion of natural gas into communities that do not have the benefit of that—

Mr. Steve Clark: I think your Minister of the Environment needs to support your plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

You have one wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We will not be forcing people to eliminate natural gas. We will not—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce, come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, it’s almost comical, seeing the Liberal cabinet twist and turn on this position. Maybe the Acting Premier can inform the Minister of the Environment that his plan is no longer supported by the government. How else can the Acting Premier explain this Liberal natural gas leak? Because according to the Globe and Mail, this government plans on eliminating natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Premier saying the Globe and Mail

article was incorrect?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Oh, they’re the bible. Everything in the press is true.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Because it is very clear that this will cost jobs. It is very clear that this would be disastrous for Ontario. So if the Globe and Mail

article is incorrect, I expect the Acting Premier to say that very clearly, because the statements by the Minister of the Environment are in direct contradiction to what the Acting Premier is saying.

Please go on the record and say what plan is accurate: yours, or the Minister of the Environment’s.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let me try this one more time, and I will say this slowly and clearly: We are not forcing anyone off natural gas. In fact, we are expanding access to natural gas. The Leader of the Opposition and his caucus should be celebrating this clarity.

I speak for our entire government—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Who’s the chief pretzel-maker over there?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order.

I’m maybe 60 seconds away from going to warnings, and some of you are close enough to get named.

Interjection: Wow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No “wow” about it. We will have order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The opposition party can stop their worrying about this. We will not be forcing anyone off natural gas. In fact, we are expanding access to natural gas.

Energy policies

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Deputy Premier. This government would have us believe that there’s nothing it can do, or could have done, to mitigate skyrocketing hydro costs. But now we know that’s simply not true. More gas plant scandal documents related to the Samsung deal now reveal a very different story. They outline that when Samsung missed their deadlines, the government could have walked away from the multi-billion-dollar deal for nothing. The ministry states the savings would have been about $30 a year on the average residential bill. Instead, the government did what was best for the Liberal Party and not for the people of Ontario.

Speaker, my question is, why did the government choose their corporate friends over the interests of Ontario ratepayers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Our government is indeed committed to renewable energy, and we’ve built a strong track record, with many successes. The successes, of course—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham-Kent–Essex, second time.

Finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, because of the programs that we’ve instituted, we’re creating well-paying manufacturing jobs across the province. In fact, the Minister of Energy was in Tillsonburg a few weeks ago, where he announced a new export agreement with Siemens Canada. We’re building wind turbine blades that will be exported to the UK. That’s 300 well-paying jobs at that facility and 600 other indirect jobs that are supported by that project.

At the same time, as the opposition has pointed out very clearly this morning, our government has also taken action to reduce overall electricity system costs and has renegotiated the green energy investment agreement, saving $3.7 billion over the life of the contract—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the deputy: The gas plant scandal documents are clear. It notes that Samsung is “missing multiple milestone deadlines,” and this “triggers the province’s ability to terminate without penalty, through existing termination clauses.”

Speaker, the document further states, “The ministry is now proposing to eliminate much of the existing agreement. The ministry argues that doing so would save the Ontario ratepayers as much as $5.2 billion.”

But instead of taking the ministry’s advice and doing right by Ontario’s families, they only cancelled, as the minister just said, $3.7 billion worth. The government left $1.5 billion on the table. I ask the same question: Why did the government choose their corporate friends over the interests of Ontario’s ratepayers?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: In fact, the Ministry of Energy did indeed revise the green energy investment agreement in 2013. The revised agreement includes protecting Samsung’s agreement and commitments to jobs and adding a commitment to solar manufacturing jobs in 2016; reducing the agreement’s total commitment for renewable projects from 2,500 megawatts to 1,369 megawatts; and requiring Samsung to obtain municipal council support resolutions for renewable energy projects before moving forward.

Samsung has now opened four manufacturing plants across the province, which will create 900 indirect jobs. All of the projects contracted now are online.

The Samsung agreement has resulted in local benefits as well, including Samsung’s $11.5-million program for the benefit of the community of Chatham-Kent, and Samsung has partnered with Canadian Solar to open a London solar plant.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you can’t just blurt it out.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The agreement is ongoing, and the ongoing portion of that agreement is more manufacturing plants and more solar panels supplying the projects, which is solely needed in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the deputy: These gas plant scandal documents continue to paint a picture of the inner workings of the Liberal government. They show that the government could have terminated the remainder of the Samsung deal and saved the ratepayers $5.2 billion and brought relief to hydro bills.

The document went on to say, contrary to what the minister just said, “Ontario has more generation capacity than it requires, and the ministry presents this rationale for not proceeding with future phases.”

The bureaucrats knew that walking away was in the best interests of the people of Ontario, but the government only cancelled a part of the deal and left $1.5 billion on the table. I ask again: Why did this government choose their corporate friends over the interests of Ontario families?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. The deputy House leader, second time.

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The government is choosing emissions-free technology, emissions-free emissions and more jobs for the people of Ontario. That’s what’s being created by the ongoing agreement with Samsung. Some 90% emissions-free is now being generated through wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectricity and bioenergy, and 42,000 more jobs are being created as a result of 30 wind and solar manufacturing operations in our communities.

We are improving overall system costs beyond the renegotiation of the Samsung agreement, which is saving $3.7 billion over the life of the contract. We mandated annual reviews of feed-in tariff pricing, which will result in ratepayer savings of $1.9 billion over the life of those contracts. Moving forward on a procurement of future large energy projects, that process is expected to eliminate $3.3 billion, additional benefits in the system, saving the average Ontario family $20 annually on their bills, compared to the 2013 long-term projections.

We’re benefiting the communities, Mr. Speaker.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre par intérim.

Yesterday, the deputy leader of the NDP asked the Deputy Premier about the fact that mental health beds across Ontario hospitals are chronically overcrowded. The Deputy Premier, shamefully, refused to even acknowledge this fact or that we had a problem. But according to the facts, hospitals in Ontario are being stretched to 110%, 120% and sometimes 130% of their mental health capacity.

I have a simple question that deserves an answer: Will the Acting Premier admit that it is unsafe to let hospital occupancy get anywhere near 100%, let alone higher than that? Yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What we absolutely know is that we must continue to expand services in the community outside of hospitals. We must support our hospitals. That’s why we increased funding to hospitals in this budget. We are also focusing significant attention and significant funding on building services outside the hospital.

One example that I think resonates with everyone in the House is our commitment to expand palliative care and hospice care in the community. What that means is that people who currently are dying in hospitals can be moved or can be in a hospice, in a community setting where they have a much more dignified experience, as do their families.

That’s the kind of health care system we are building: one where people receive the health care that they need, in the best possible place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Deputy Premier says that health care should be evidence-based; it should be based on facts. Here are some facts that come right from the government itself: In the last quarter alone, the hospital in Burlington was at 118% capacity for its mental health beds; in London, 100%; in Sault Ste. Marie, 100%; in St. Catharines and Ottawa, 100%; in Thunder Bay’s hospitals, one was at 103% and the other at 105% capacity.

Will the Deputy Premier look at her own numbers and admit that Ontario’s mental health beds are dangerously overcrowded?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think the difference between the approach that we are taking here and the approach that the third party is taking is that they believe that people are always best served in hospital,

whereas we believe—because we recognize challenges—that we need to expand community capacity, and that is exactly what we’re doing.

Another way that I’m very proud of the progress that we’re making when it comes to people with mental illness is in supportive housing. We know that there are people who are in hospital, in mental health beds, who could be better served outside the hospital, in the community. That’s why we’re building capacity outside the community: to take pressure off hospitals and to provide the highest quality of care for those particular people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Well, the Liberals cannot deny the facts. New Democrats obtained, through freedom of information, the government’s own numbers. They reveal that acute care beds are overcrowded throughout our province. They reveal that mental health beds are overcrowded throughout our province. Cutting more nurses, cutting more services and cutting more beds is only making things worse, not better. It will make things worse for patients in London, Hamilton, North Bay and right across the GTA.

When will this Liberal government admit there is a silent crisis in our hospitals and stop the cuts to front-line care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite—actually, I thought her first two questions were pretty thoughtful. When she moves to allegations that we are cutting health care, that is where she is completely wrong. The numbers speak for themselves. In this budget alone, we’ve added $1 billion to health care spending. That is an undeniable fact.

Another fact that I think is really important for people to understand is that we are adding nurses. We have added 26,000 nurses to our health care sector over the past 12 years. That is a significant increase in care for patients, and we’re getting outcomes. In fact, ICES, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Studies, has found that our changes in health care have increased the number of patients being treated and reduced the average length of stay—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma deuxième question est également pour la première ministre par intérim.

Yesterday, I joined my leader, Andrea Horwath, at a hospital in Scarborough. The ER we visited was built for 20,000 people per year, but it’s handling 65,000 people. For half of last year, Rouge Valley’s Scarborough Hospital was running at over 100% capacity. Health care in Scarborough is stretched really thin, Speaker.

Will the Liberal government agree that, at the very minimum, hospital funding should keep up with inflation and the growing population each and every year?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what’s really important to me are the outcomes for patients, because that is what our whole health care system is all about.

The SEIU—I know there are some people from SEIU here today, and welcome to the Legislature—did a study on the Canadian health care system in 2014. The conclusion they came to was this: When it comes to spending our health care dollars wisely and efficiently, Ontario and Quebec are at the front of the pack.

The Fraser Institute’s report on wait times revealed that Ontario has the second-shortest overall wait times in Canada. In fact, we’ve gone from the worst to the best when it comes to hip and knee replacements, cataracts, cardiac care, radiation oncology, MRIs, CT scans and ultrasounds.

What matters to me is that patients are getting the care they need more quickly, with a higher level of quality. As I’ve said before, the system is in—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, yesterday, we met their cardiologist. He told us that the lack of funding for their cardiac catheterization lab at Centenary hospital means that patients cannot get the preventative cardiac care that they need. Because they don’t get the preventative care, they end up needing more invasive, more high-risk surgeries down the road.

Will the Acting Premier stop the cuts to our hospitals, so that patients can get the access they need and the hospital care they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s interesting, I guess, that we’ll be talking a lot about Scarborough over the next little while. But I do want to say that our members from Scarborough and west Durham have been very strong advocates for the health care system. Like me, they are committed to a health care system that puts patients first.

We are increasing our investment in health care every single year. We have done that. They are making claims that simply are not true about cuts to our system. The reality is that hospital funding has increased by 53% since 2003. We are increasing funding for every single hospital in the province of Ontario this year as part of our $1-billion increase to health care spending.

We are increasing funding in Scarborough: $4.5 million for the Rouge Valley Health System; $2.9 million in Scarborough; $2.6 million at Lakeridge. We’re making—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Hospitals throughout the GTA are overcrowded. Centenary hospital in Scarborough is only one of so many examples. The ER sees three times more patients than it was built for. More often than not, there are no acute care beds available to admit anybody from the ER. Doctors feel the system is stretched beyond the limit.

This is a health care system in crisis. When will the Deputy Premier admit that there is a crisis in health care and stop the cuts to our hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once again, there are facts here that are actually indisputable. There are no cuts to hospitals. There is, in fact, a significant increase to hospital funding this year, and we have increased funding in the past as well.

We are getting outcomes for patients that are demonstrating that people who work in our health care system are working very, very hard to provide better quality of care. We’re seeing infection rates coming down in our hospitals. We’re seeing higher quality of care in our hospitals. The impact of the Excellent Care for All Act is actually visible now as hospitals report improvements in quality of care. That’s what patients are looking for. They want access to care in a timely way, and when they get that care, they want it to be of the highest possible quality.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday’s Auditor General’s report was quite stunning on the secret union payouts. The auditor said, “Ontario is an outlier with respect to this use of taxpayer funds.” We also found out in this report that there is no evidence of the Ontario government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do you want to go?

The deputy House leader is warned.

Finish, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: We also found out that there’s no evidence the Ontario government has paid any other public sector union for bargaining costs in Ontario. So just a quick recap: An outlier in Canada, no other bargaining costs were covered in any other sector, and it adds up as well as your net zeros do in Treasury Board.

My question is, are the Liberals ashamed that they took the money from the classroom? Because not only is this not done in any other sector in Ontario; it’s a one-of-a-kind deal in the rest of Canada.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Despite attempts to be the new PC Party, this is a really solid reminder that the old PC Party still rules. Attacks on teachers is what they do best.

We completely disagree with them. We actually believe that investing in teachers and investing in professional development has a positive impact on kids in the classroom. We’re proud of our investments in professional development—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

Interjection: From his seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know my rules.

To your seat, please, to withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Look, bring it down a notch.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My question: Does the member opposite really believe that teachers should not—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Does the member opposite believe that teachers should not be trained in things like bullying prevention, in how to work with kids with special needs, in how to teach mathematics in a way that improves those math scores? Training teachers is an important part of having a strong education system.

The results speak for themselves. When they were in charge, the graduation rate in high school was a shameful 68%. It is now over—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I can tell you one thing: Bill Davis would never have taken $80 million out of kids in classrooms. And I can tell you another thing: Bill Davis never would have stood up and said a 50%, one way or the other way, was a net zero. No, Bill Davis never would have done that. In fact, he would have ensured that there were—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ll tell you something else Bill Davis never would have done: He would never have threatened kids in demonstration schools for the deaf and the blind. He never would have cut them off of IBI and ABA wait-lists. He wouldn’t have ensured that rural schools and urban schools across this province were going to be cut. No, no. The party of Bill Davis would never have done that, but the party of Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty sure as heck did.

So I ask the Deputy Premier one more time: What could that $90 million have been spent on? Kids in classrooms or more transfers to unions?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I knew Bill Davis, Lisa. You’re no Bill Davis.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation, second time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now we’ll move to warnings. I’ll give them out like candy if you want.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, quite frankly, and for the ones who have been warned, the next one is a naming.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think it’s actually time to reflect on how Ontario’s teacher unions were originally set up. They were set up as federations that didn’t bargain under the Labour Relations Act. They were set up with the capacity to—

Mr. John Yakabuski: We don’t need a history lesson; we need to know—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: They were set up with bargaining departments and with a professional development department. Do you know who set them up that way? Premier Bill Davis set them up that way, so don’t tell me that Bill Davis didn’t believe in professional development for teachers. We actually—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Minister, when I stand, you sit.

New question.

Government advertising

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last year, the government changed the Government Advertising Act so that they could run partisan government ads. We see them all the time.

As Ontario’s non-partisan Auditor General wrote, “The government could flood the province with self-congratulatory and self-promotional advertising that would be of little practical use to the citizens paying for it.” The new electoral rules will limit anyone who wants to criticize them during an election and the six months before, but they will allow the government to spend millions and flood the province with partisan ads during an election and the six months before. Those are the rules.

Are the Liberals so desperate that they’ll limit the speech of non-partisan citizen groups in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Mike Colle: How about that $10,000 fundraiser you’re having?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence is warned.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re very proud of the legislation that we have when it comes to banning partisan government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry is warned. I’m just going to do what I said.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: One of the first things we did when we were elected in 2003, Speaker, was to bring in legislation to ban partisan ads because we had seen such a blatant misuse of taxpayers’ money from the previous government. We’re proud of that. We’re one of the very few jurisdictions in the whole world—

Mr. Paul Miller: Baloney. You rigged the election.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re one of the few jurisdictions in the entire world to have legislation that bans partisan ads and we’re proud of that distinction.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The Liberals’ new rules don’t just limit third-party ads about political parties or politicians. These new rules clamp down on any issue of public interest. The new rules will silence climate change groups, non-partisan citizen groups, parents concerned with autism, people fighting for pensions or fighting for lower hydro bills, nurses concerned about the cuts in the health care system—all will have their right to free speech limited at the same time as the government can flood the airwaves and bus shelters and newspaper ad pages with partisan government advertising.

Can the Deputy Premier explain why there is one set of rules for seniors fighting for pensions and another set of rules for the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It is clearly obvious, now, that the NDP do not want to reform election financing rules in the province of Ontario. From the beginning, they have been trying to slow down and stall the process. Perhaps they want to justify and continue to do their big $10,000 fundraisers like the one they’re going to be doing in Ottawa.

On this side of the House, we have heard the public. We want to make sure that we have a system that is transparent and accountable. That is why we have tabled this bill and we want to go and listen to Ontarians. I hope that the members opposite on the NDP side will agree to a unanimous consent motion so that we can start that public hearings process now, so we can start listening to Ontarians now and through the summer.

I ask the NDP: Are they going to support the unanimous consent motion or not?

Government fiscal policies

Mr. Chris Ballard: This question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer released his Economic and Fiscal Outlook for Ontario. The report forecasts solid growth for the Ontario economy and confirmed the province’s budget projection that Ontario can achieve its long-standing commitment to balance the provincial budget in 2017-18.

This balanced budget was first forecast at the bottom of the recession in the budget of 2009-10. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada never to miss a deficit reduction target and to balance according to the

schedule set during the recession.

Speaker, would the minister tell the House how the province’s stewardship of its finances brought Ontario through the recession and pointed it back into the black?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member from Newmarket–Aurora for that excellent question. I would also like to thank the FAO and take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the work he’s done on his report.

Over the past two years, the Ontario economy has posted solid growth, with real GDP rising by 2.7% on average in 2014-15. Our commitment to build Ontario up ensures stronger growth going forward. In fact, the FAO expects that Ontario’s economy will outperform the rest of Canada in 2016 and continue to grow over the next several years, supported by strong gains in international exports and business investment. Equally important is that our progressive fiscal plan is positioned for improving long-term economic sustainability.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Minister. The report from the Financial Accountability Officer has validated the process the province took to getting back to a balanced budget after this fiscal year. Whether bond-rating agencies, economists, banks or others, external reviewers have also noted the credibility of Ontario’s 2016 budget and fiscal plan.

Anyone can slash and burn their way back to balance, putting the burden on the backs of those least able to afford it. Ontario grew targeted business sectors and steered a compassionate and responsible path back to balance during the past eight budget cycles.

Would the minister outline the key components of the province’s budget that enabled Ontario to balance its budget, emerge stronger after the recession and lead Canada in economic growth?

Hon. Charles Sousa: A very well-informed question. Let me be clear: We’re on track and on

schedule to balance the budget by 2017-18 and the year after that. We’re making strategic investments in infrastructure and in services that matter most to the people of Ontario.

To mention only a few, we’re investing $1 billion more in health care, $400 million more to the Business Growth Initiative and $160 billion over the next 12 years to build roads, bridges, transit and needed infrastructure. The government is committed to beating our targets and coming to balance through a fair and balanced approach, as we have been over the last number of years.

Thank you for the question and thank you to the team on this side of the House that fights for Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed that under this government’s economic plan, they’re not going to be able to fund the natural inflationary growth of health care spending. This means more nurses will be fired, more surgeries will be cancelled and further cuts will happen to physician services. All these cuts are due to the government’s fiscal mismanagement, scandal and waste.

Will the Acting Premier finally admit that due to their incompetence to govern, health care services for Ontarians will continue to be cut over the next four years?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I’ve said earlier today and the day before and the day before and the day before, we are actually increasing spending when it comes to health care. It is a billion dollars more this year than last year. I have to say, I don’t know anybody who thinks a billion dollars more is a cut.

We are going to continue to invest more in health care. We’re going to continue to make sure our kids get the best possible education. We’re going to continue our work to make sure that the most vulnerable in this province have the best opportunities to be successful. We’re going to move forward on free tuition in colleges and universities for our low- and moderate-income families. We’re going to continue with our agenda and we’re going to do it in a fiscally responsible way, in a way that gets better value for the dollars that we’re spending.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Acting Premier. Perhaps the Acting Premier could see where they’re sending the money, because it’s not reaching the front lines in Ontario. Unfortunately, today it was announced that Sunnybrook hospital was cutting 109 surgery days out of their budget. So cuts are happening, Acting Premier.

Last year, this government not only saw cuts to health care; they fired nurses, they cancelled surgeries and they cut physicians’ services. Yesterday the FAO report brought to light the degree of underfunding the health care system is receiving under this government for the next few years.

Not only do hospitals have to deal with budget shortfalls, but they also have to deal with the decreased revenues from the Ontario lottery corporation that this government has cut. They have to deal with the high energy rates that are affecting the hospitals. The hospital in Timmins is concerned that the money they received in extras is not even going to cover the cost of their electricity bills.

Will the Acting Premier tell Ontarians how many surgeries will be cancelled and how many nurses will be fired this year due to their underfunding of health care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m sorry to hear that the member opposite has fallen into the trap of not understanding that when we talk about nurses, we need to talk about net new nurses. Collective agreements are written in a way that layoff notices are issued even if those nurses are re-hired in another part of the hospital. So when you talk about net new nurses—26,000 net new nurses in our system now—even last year, thousands of net new nurses were added.

I do find it strange that the member opposite who asked that question is the same person who stood in the way of us cutting the price of generic drugs in half for all Ontarians. That action was one example of how we can get better value for money. That caucus and that member in particular did not want to cut the price of drugs in half.

We’re going to continue to do the work we need to do to get best value and best outcomes for patients.

Parental rights

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last year’s Cy and Ruby’s Act for parental equality passed second reading with all-party support. Since then, the government has stalled on my bill and there are babies being born to LGBTQ parents who are being forced to fight Ontario’s discriminatory system.

For a decade now, the courts have told the Ontario government that our parentage legislation is clearly discriminatory. It does not recognize that LGBTQ families even exist. As a result, LGBTQ parents are forced to adopt their very own children.

Can the Acting Premier please explain why this government won’t pass Cy and Ruby’s Act and is continuing to prevent the children of LGBTQ parents from parental recognition?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for her advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, this government remains committed to supporting all of Ontario’s families and protecting the best interests of children. We recognize that modern families come in many diverse forms. We are also aware that use of assisted conception methods, such as IVF and surrogacy, are increasingly common. I spent 14 years in the delivery room, and this was not the reality of the time—I realize that was many years ago.

But before any changes are made to parentage laws, it is important to hear from as many people as possible about their experiences, to ensure that we understand the needs and circumstances of all families.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Acting Premier: This government’s inaction on this issue has forced LGBTQ parents to take the government to court. You’re fighting them in court. The government apparently cannot figure out whether it is going to concede that legislation needs to be changed or whether it will continue to fight equality for LGBTQ families.

This isn’t complex. The government should not be fighting this case. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money and time. Will the Acting Premier commit to ending the discrimination of LGBTQ parents and children and pass Cy and Ruby’s Act on parental equality in time for pride month, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Attorney General?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: We support the principle underlying the member opposite’s bill. That’s why the Ministry of the Attorney General, in co-operation with other ministries, will be consulting on this important issue over the coming months. Ontario was served with a constitutional challenge to the birth registration and parental recognition provision in the Vital Statistics Act and Children’s Law Reform Act. As this case is before the court, I cannot comment on it, but I can tell you that we’re serious about consulting because there are different opinions and we wanted to make sure that we hear from as many families as possible.

Personal support workers

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. May 19 marks Personal Support Worker Day, a day for us to celebrate the contributions of the approximately 100,000 personal support workers here in Ontario. I acknowledge those that are with us here today. I’ve worked closely with many PSWs in my community of Cambridge and the Waterloo region at Cambridge Memorial Hospital, and also in my role as a care coordinator for the community care access centre.

More importantly, there are many families in my community who rely on and value the important services that PSWs provide to them daily. In fact, in the home and community care sector alone, nearly 41 million direct hours of publicly funded personal support services are delivered each year.

Can the associate minister please speak to the role that PSWs play in Ontario and the steps that our government is taking to support them as they serve Ontarians?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to begin by thanking the member opposite for the question. I know that, as somebody who has worked in the front lines, she understands the important role that PSWs play. I want to also take the opportunity to recognize some of the PSW workers and SEIU union representatives who are here today.

I want to take this opportunity on this day to recognize, officially, the contributions of personal support workers in Ontario and assure the House that our government is committed to building a high-quality PSW workforce with the capacity to meet Ontario’s personal support needs today and for many years to come. We as a government have been a leader in recognizing the growing importance of PSWs in the health system. This includes our PSW workforce stabilization strategy, which will see the base minimum wage for publicly funded personal support services in the home and community care sector raised to $16.50 an hour.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the associate minister for her work on this file. Our government’s steps toward supporting our PSWs contribute fundamentally to our plan to put patients first across Ontario. During my time as a care coordinator, I often worked together very closely with PSWs to help manage and improve the health of our shared patients. More than 34,000 of Ontario’s 100,000 PSWs deliver care, assistance and support to our seniors and other people with complex care needs in their homes and communities. We estimate that over 9,000 PSWs work in hospitals and 57,000 PSWs work in long-term-care homes.

To continue building up these services, it’s essential that we work with our partners in the sector to develop a long-term strategy. Can the associate minister please inform the House what work is under way to strengthen our government’s relationships with PSWs?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Thank you to the member from Cambridge for the supplementary question.

Our government has ongoing plans to work with the sector so that our personal support workers can continue to provide better service for Ontarians. That is why we have developed a common PSW educational standard, which was released in September 2014, to improve the consistency of learning outcomes. We have also created the PSW training fund, which provides up to $10 million annually to support training and education to PSWs working in home and community care.

We are committed to a long-term strategy that will serve our PSWs and will build on our initiatives to strengthen the profession and ensure ongoing alignment with the health system transformation agenda.

Finally, I just want to thank the PSWs across this province because they are the glue that holds our health care system together.

Consumer protection

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, as you know, in your hometown of Mississauga they recently voted to ban Uber and ride-sharing operations altogether. I want to commend Mayor John Tory and members of council. They brought forward some sensible resolutions that are balanced in protecting consumers while enabling more choice in Toronto.

The reality is that now we have Ontario’s largest city next to Ontario’s third-largest city—and Brampton may join Mississauga—where you can get into a legal Uber vehicle on one side of the street and then, preposterously, cross the street and be in an illegal Uber vehicle.

Minister, this is not good for consumers. It’s not good for drivers. It’s certainly not good for business investment. Don’t you think it’s time that we brought in province-wide rules around ride-sharing for clarity, for consumer protection and to allow good choices for consumers in our province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member for his question. Thank you also for corresponding with me last week relative to this very issue, recognizing that the sharing economy is upon us. I outlined that very clearly in the fall economic statement as well as in our last budget, that we must embrace the issues around the sharing economy in a way that is fair, provides consumer protection and provides business protection.

That is exactly how we’re proceeding. We’ve established a consulting committee to review the effects and the impacts going forward. We also recognize the importance of the municipalities in engaging in the licensing. Some municipalities have operated differently than others when it comes to the sharing economy, and with ride-sharing specifically.

I recognize the challenges that are before us, and I appreciate the member’s commitment to the issues and engagement that we have ongoing as a result.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister: I appreciate the fact that he has, as finance minister, helped move forward insurance products for ride-sharing. I commend him and encourage him in that endeavour.

As the minister knows, in Mississauga, there are over 100,000 users of Uber. There are 5,000 people on payroll who depend on that income, and they had a bizarre system where they had an advisory committee that was dominated by interests from the cab sector. Asking Uber to get their permission is a bit like asking Netflix to get permission from Rogers and Bell and Cogeco. It just is not going to happen. It’s very much last century.

You may recall that the city of Mississauga sent you a resolution asking for the province to intervene and have province-wide standards. I think that’s a cry for help. It’s certainly a good change that would benefit consumers across our province.

Minister, will you take the advice from that resolution and bring in standards across our province to help move this decision into the 21st century and out of the last?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Yes, the member opposite did highlight the conditions of that advisory committee that he felt was sort of tilted one way. I understand that issue. We have also established our own sharing economy advisory committee to develop an integrated and a coordinated strategy that will promote a level playing field and tax fairness that fosters innovation and support for new business. We don’t want to hamper economic ingenuity and increasing of economic prowess, and we want to protect workers, consumers and communities.

The member opposite cited the fact we have before us a review for insurance protection of all those who would be safe in those respective vehicles. We are doing just that by the redefinition of “fleet” to enable, in this case, Uber and Intact to have an agreement to provide for safety for consumers as well as the drivers. We also have Aviva, which has done another program to support drivers so that they’re properly insured.

I have been reviewing what has happened in Alberta, recognizing some—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Horse racing industry

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Fort Erie Race Track will open for its 119th season on May 31, and you’re all invited to join me there.

This racetrack remains the only one in the province that must rely on $250,000 in funding, from the town of Fort Erie. There are 29 gaming zones in the province, including Niagara, but Fort Erie is excluded. The racetrack has a business case to become self-sufficient. It supports a thousand good-paying jobs in my riding—700 direct and 300 indirect jobs. It’s an important part of the fabric that makes Fort Erie such a great community.

The town supports the track, visitors support the track and everyone in Niagara supports the track. Will this government support the Fort Erie Race Track by including them in the Niagara gaming zone and returning slots and increasing race days at our track?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to just commend the member for Niagara Falls. I know what kind of interest he has in the horse racing industry in the Fort Erie area.

We do know that the Fort Erie Race Track, of course, is the second leg of the very prestigious Canadian Triple Crown, the Prince of Wales Stakes.

During our recent budget, my colleague the Minister of Finance extended the funding for horse racing in the province of Ontario from 2019 to 2021, to provide stability to what is a very important industry, particularly in rural Ontario. We have 940 race dates in the province of Ontario—the fourth in terms of jurisdiction in North America—and we’ll continue to look at plans for Fort Erie as we move forward with the integration with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Back to the Acting Premier: The government claims that their latest horse racing plan will restore confidence to the industry, confidence that was lost after the government’s last horse racing plan failed.

We have an incredible amount of development ready to go in Fort Erie, like the Canadian Motor Speedway, and fixing the track is the final piece we need, to make sure all that development goes forward.

Will this government give confidence to the people of Fort Erie, and the horse people across the province, by including Fort Erie in the Niagara gaming zone, returning the slots to Fort Erie, protecting the thousands of jobs there, and ensuring the Fort Erie Race Track can be self-sufficient?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Be seated, please.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I thank the member for the question, recognizing the importance of the work that has been done recently to pass legislation to establish an Ontario racing coalition that represents the entire industry, to facilitate us with the respective funding of $100 million that is now committed to the industry.

When it comes to trust, it’s all about ensuring trust, to ensure that the monies that are being established go where they need to go, which is to the horses, to the breeders and to the people in the rural communities that will benefit, who have not actually benefited to date.

We are making those changes. We are working very closely with the industry, under the industry’s co-operation and collaboration.

I’m very proud of the work done by the Minister of Agriculture to this point. We’ll continue to work closely, for the benefit of the horse racing community, on an ongoing basis.

Senior citizens

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. I know first-hand that in my riding of Davenport, I am fortunate to have the number of seniors that I do. My question today is on social integration and the participation of older adults in our society. The participation of seniors in the community is often seen as an indicator of a productive and healthy society, and it is widely accepted that social supports have a strong, proactive effect on health.

However, the opposite is also true: Many seniors may be at risk of being socially isolated or lonely. This may be due to a number of factors, such as living alone, death of family members or friends, retirement or poor health.

We know that seniors want to live longer at home and in the community. Thus, the issue of social isolation takes on a new importance, a significant issue today across the province.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House of the work being done by his ministry to address social isolation among seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I know that the member from Davenport is a very avid supporter of seniors in her community, and I want to thank her for the question.

Our government, led by our Premier, is dedicated to assisting seniors in living a comfortable, healthy and safe life after retire